IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
HELD AT PERTH
In the matters of:
1.
CIV 1275 of 2012
and 1323 of 2012, both of which currently listed for Special Appointment on
18.6.2012 at 10.30 am.
2.
VR158 of 2011 or
Law and Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2012] WASAT 36 dated 24.2.2012.
And
In the matter of an Ex-parte Application for Judicial
Review of Justice Chaney decision in VR158 of 2011 pursuant to RSC O 59 r 3 and
subs 25(6), 33,
43 and 59 of the Supreme Court Act,
1935 for declarative judgments.
BETWEEN
MAURICE FREDERICK LAW as the approved legal
representative of SPUNTER PTY LTD FIRST APPLICANT
And
DAVID GERALD TAYLOR FIRST RESPONDENT
THE LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
SECOND RESPONDENT
EX-PARTE: MAURICE FREDERICK LAW for Spunter Pty Ltd
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF
ORIGINATING MOTION DATED 7.3.2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Document:
7th day of March, 2012
Filed on behalf of:
Applicant in person
Date of filing: 8 th day of March, 2012
Prepared by:
MAURICE FREDERICK LAW Phone: 08 92961555
87, William
Street , HERNE Mobile
WA 6059 Email: moza35@bigpond.com
P.O. BOX: 399 Mobile
MIDLAND WA 6936
TABLE OF CHRONOLOGY NO.1 – COMPLAINT NOS
5 AND 6
No.
|
Date of Event
|
Description of Event
|
Page Nos.
|
1
|
7.11.2011
|
Spunter Pty Ltd through its
director Maurice Law issued a Subpoena Ducus
Tecum (See Annexure MFL1-2) to David Taylor his former solicitor
requesting the latter to produce before SAT in VR158 of 2011 the bank
statements that settles once and for all the Controversy involving:
1) Registrar Powell’s Improper Costs Order CIV1131 of
2006 against Ni Kok Chin that was pursued by David Taylor instigating Maurice Law and David Taylor
paid the court fees of $66.20 dated 2.3.2012 for payments made
25.5.2007. It is not correct that
$66.20 was paid but $399.00 was indeed paid by David Taylor himself for and
on behalf of Spunter Pty Ltd but he later refused to be involved in it after
he had instigated it and he left Maurice Law to carry the baby himself (See Annexure MFL3) but David Taylor
claimed $399.00 on 29.5.2007 (See Annexure MFL3A) (See Annexure MFL4) from
Maurice Law in a vexatious action of $300.00 against Mr. Ni Kok Chin in the
Midland Magistrates Court Minor Claim CA2475 of 2006 (See Annexure MFL5 to
MFL7), the subject of Complaint No.6 in VR158 of 2011 in the Table attached:
See Annexure MFL8);
2) Master Sanderson’s Improper costs order in CIV1775
of 2008 against both Ni Kok Chin and Maurice Law;
3) Owen JA Improper Costs Order in CACV 107 of 2008
against Ni Kok alone, that is the subject of the pointer given by the High
Court of Australia in P1 of 2010 relating to the NEXUS between the
Solicitor’s Work of Ni Kok Chin for Nancy Hall in CIV1142 of 2005;
4) The NEXUS is the subject of the Dereliction of the
solicitor’s Duties of David Taylor to Spunter in CIV 1142 of 2005 and CIV
1131 of 2006 that caused the Loss of the Legitimate Claim of Spunter against
the Estate of Nancy Hall in DC CIV2509 of 2002, the subject of DCJ Sweeney’s
Decision and the resulting Improper Costs Order of DCJ Sweeney (MFL9).
5) The Non-Jurisdictional Decision of DCJ O’Neal in
DCCIV2509 of 2002 regarding the suspension of the Improper Costs Order of DCJ
Sweeney resulting in the Improper Costs Order of Pullin and Murphy JJA which
is the result of CACV144 of 2011 where the Applicant filed a 38 page
documents which details the reason why Suspension Order should be granted by
DCJ O’Neal. There is no longer any
need to pursue the Application for Suspension of the Judge O’Neal decision
because it is not relevant on the ground that Spunter Pty Ltd is now
un-financial. Notwithstanding DCJ Sweeney having declared that a sum of some
$144k at paragraph 244 of the judgment is owing and payable to Spunter by the
Estate of Nancy Hall. See Pullin J dismissal of CACV 144 of 2011 (Annexure MFL10).
6) The Improper Costs Order of Pullin and Murphy JJA in
CACV144 of 2011 that is the subject of the Notice of Discontinuance by
Spunter dated 27.2.2012 (See Annexure MFL11) in view of the fact that there
is currently in place Application for Judicial Reviews of all those matters
in controversy by both Ni Kok Chin and Maurice Law in CIV1275 of 2011 and Ni
Kok Chin in CIV1323 of 2012 both being scheduled for Special Appointment on
18.6.2012 at 10.30 am.
|
15-16
17-, 17A, 19
20 to 23
24
25
26
|
2.
|
15.11.2011
|
As a result of the Subpoena
of Ducus Tecum indicated above, the President of SAT, His Honour Justice
Chaney issued an Order to David Taylor to produce the subject bank statement
which indicates that the court fees for CIV 1131 of 2006 (See Annexure MFL12)
was indeed paid by David
Taylor to the Registry of the Supreme Court of Western Australia between the
dates in controversy of 10.2.2006 and 16.2.2006. The transcript of the proceedings dated
15.11.2011 at page 9 was the subject of Maurice Law request for a copy of
that Document in his letter to SAT dated 27.11.2011 (See Annexure MFL13).
|
27
28
|
3.
|
29.11.2011
|
David Taylor in response to
the President of SAT’s Order as indicated above deposited into the Office of
SAT, the single page bank statement as indicted above, for which the
President had promised Maurice Law that he could view it at his own leisure
and obtain a copy of it from SAT.
|
|
4.
|
30.11.2011
|
Maurice Law attended at the
Office of SAT at No.12, St. George’s Terrace, Perth in the State of Western
Australia and did personally view the Single Page of the Bank Statement that
was deposited by David Taylor with SAT on 29.11.2011, with the courtesy of
Ms. Jacqui of SAT who was in attendance whilst Ms. Toni Sherwood was away on
vacation. Maurice Law saw that the
single page document has about five transactions. There was two transactions which indicate
that David Taylor did pay the sum of $654.20 (NOT $654.00 ONLY) to the
Supreme Court Registry on or about 19.5.2009 (NOT 2006) (See Annexure MFL13A,
which contains the date of the False Receipt 202483 issued by Registrar
Powell only on 19.5.2009) BUT THAT SUM WAS WITHDRAWN ON THE SAME DAY
purportedly for the purpose of enabling David Taylor to obtain the false
receipt from the Supreme Court Registry to tally with the contents of the
letter of Registrar Powell dated 11.6.2009 found at page 136 of the yellow
appeal book in cacv107 of 2008 that is the subject of the fresh evidence that
was improperly rejected by Owen JA on 9.12.2009 (the Bank Statement).
|
29
|
5.
|
29.12.2011
|
Maurice Law wrote to SAT in
2 pages, copied to David Taylor and the LPCC requesting for the one page Bank
Statement indicating the Five Entries, submitted by David Taylor on
29.11.2011 and personally viewed by Maurice Law and promised by President
Chaney to be given to him (Request for the Single Document that was promised
by President Chaney) (See Annexure MFL14 to MFL15).
|
30 to 31
|
6.
|
13.2.2011
|
Maurice Law wrote a two
page letter to SAT copied to LPCC requesting for the Bank Statement that has
five entries that shows that payment of $654.20 was paid by David Taylor into
the Supreme Court Registry on or about 19.5.2009 for the purpose of Registrar
Powell issuing the False Receipt No.202483 backdating the payment of $654.20
without the proof of the Credit Card Payment that was advocated by Registrar
Powell in his letter dated 11.6.2009, the subject of the rejected fresh
evidence before Owen JA found at page 136 of the Yellow Appeal Book in CACV
107 of 2008 (See Annexure: MFL16 to MFL20).
|
32 to 36
|
6.
|
15.2.2012
|
Maurice Law wrote a five
page letter again to SAT, copied to David Taylor, the LPCC, the State
Attorney General, the Crime Corruption Commissioner, the Fraud Squad of the
WA Police and Senior Constable Williams giving a List of Interrogatories that
explains the situation crystal clear to SAT (See Annexure MFL 20 to MFL 21)
(the Crystal Clear Situation).
|
37 to 38
|
7.
|
17.2.2012
|
Maurice Law received a
letter from SAT dated 13.2.2012 purportedly responding to his two letters
dated 13.2.2012 and 15.2.2012. This
letter does not refer to the said two letters. This letter from SAT contains
seven pages. These seven pages is not
the Bank Statement viewed by Maurice Law as provided by Jacqui to him on the
30.11.2011. But Toni Sherwood of SAT
falsely certifies on a completely new letter purportedly issued by David
Taylor on 29.11.2011 that was never seen by Maurice Law on 30.11.2011 and it
was never shown to Maurice at all as it was Jacqui who showed the bank
statement to Maurice on 30.11.2011 (See Annexure: MFL22-MFL25. See also the
seven page supplanted documents by Toni Sherwood who refused to provide the
single page bank statement but instead provided on 13.2.2012 (Annexure: MFL-26
to MFL-31 including MFL 28A and 28B
for comparison purposes). Queries by Maurice Law:
1) Why does SAT concoct this new evidence ELEVEN weeks
later after that bank statement was produced by David Taylor on 29.11.2011
and showed to Maurice on 30.11.2011? (the SAT Concocted Evidence)?
2) Maurice Law should not have to ask for the Bank
Statement because he already asked for it on 27.11.2011 by letter as in
Annexure MFL 13 despite President Chaney having agreed to provide him for it
as recorded in the transcript dated 15.11.2011?
3) Why was the $654.00 only (not $654.20 as required by
Registrar Powell on 16.2.2006 as contained in his letter dated 11.6.2009)
taken out from the trust account of David Taylor on 20.2.2006 long after the
crucial date of 10.2.2006 for compliance with Jenkins Order dated 20.1.2006
in CIV1131 of 2006 had passed? (Annexure: MFL-28B)
4) Why was this payment of $654.00 only then paid into
the personal account of David Taylor on the same day and not paid into the
Supreme Court as court fees for CIV1131 of 2006? (See Annexure MFL-27). David
Taylor falsely swear on 29.3.2007 that he paid the fee of $654.20 for account
No.201702 on 10.2.2006 for which Toni Sherwood did not certify to be a true
copy (See Annexure MFL28). David
Taylor provided an illegible Note of Simon O’Brien accepted by SAT as an
authentic document: See Annexure: MFL29).
5) Why did President Chaney dismiss Complaint 6 and 7
which relates to the two issues, or is his Honour willfully blind and
refusing to do justice in accordance with the law and the applicable facts of
the case? – in terms of the following:
5.1.David Taylor having misled the Court of Simmonds J
in CIV1142 of 2005 (No.2) about the date of the Filing of the Writ of Summons
in CIV1131 of 2006;
5.2.
David Taylor having sworn a False Affidavit dated 29.3.2007 to mislead the
Court of Simmonds J again in CIV 1142 of 2005 No.2.
5.3. Why did the LPCC despite having been
informed that it is seen to be siding David Taylor is deliberately
disregarding the Evidence that is before it? (See Annexure MFL 31).
|
39 to 43
44 to 53
………
|
8.
|
2.3.2012
|
1) Ms. Mavis Blower, an
experienced settlement agent made a calculation of the interests at the
interests rate of 15% p.a. accumulated on the Mortgage of the Hazelmere and
the Mt. Lawley Properties of Nancy Hall to Engineering Facilities dated
December, 1992. The Mortgage was
allegedly redeemed by Kenneth Duncan Hall in December, 1994 for $374, 107.00
(See Annexure MFL-32 to MFL-34).
2) The widow of Kenneth
Duncan Hall, Mrs. Audrey Frances Hall, sued Nancy Hall while the latter was
alive and was represented by Ni Kok Chin.
But David Taylor as the then solicitor for Spunter Pty Ltd defrauded
Maurice Law of some $60k in legal fees but was working clandestinely with
Anthony Prime of Mc Callum, Donavan and Sweeny conspiring with Registrar
Powell to thwart the claim of Spunter and succeeded in removing Mr. Ni Kok
Chin as solicitor for Nancy Hall in CIV1142 of 2005 No.1. Nancy Hall as a disabled person afflicted
with psychiatric morbidity was defrauded of her property rights in CIV 1142
of 2005 No.2 and Audrey Hall was given a freehand to defraud Nancy Hall in
the sum of $2.3m in CIV2073 of 2003 as decided by Jenkins J.
3) Mavis Blower also did a
research with Landgate about the transactions of the Estate of Nancy Hall in
the aftermath of the death of Nancy Hall on 13.1.2008. (See Annexure: MFL 35-
MFL-41).
4) Michele-Maree GANNAWAY as the
administrator of the estate of Nancy Hall stated through her solicitor Mr.
C.P. Stokes dated 14.7.2008 that no money changed hands for the takeover of
the mortgage of the Hazelmere and the Mt. Lawley Properties of the estate of
Nancy Hall in 1994 by Kenneth Duncan Hall and therefore the claim made by
Mrs. Audrey Hall against the Estate of Nancy Hall in CIV2073 of 2008 is a
falsehood (See aNNEXURE 42). The falsehood has legal ramifications
stemming from Master Sanderson’s decision in CIV1775 of 2008 which
precipitated Audrey Hall claim of $2.3m in CIV 2073 of 2008. Therefore Jenkin’s Decision must be set
aside as the fraud is being unraveled (the Fraud of Audrey Hall).
5) The fraud of Audrey Hall
has ramifications for the recovery of the legitimate debt of Spunter Pty Ltd
that was caused by the Dereliction of the Solicitor Duties of David Taylor in
CIV1142 of 2005 No.1 and No.2 and CIV1131 of 2006 and also for the recovery
of the ongoing costs of the Salvour status of Ni Kok Chin as solicitor for
the Estate of Nancy Hall pursuant to s.244 of the former LPA 2003. These are the subject matters of CIV2157 of
2011 and CACV107 of 2008 and CIV 1775 of 2008.
6. Michele-Maree Gannaway
has admitted to the fraud of Audrey Hall as she is purported to have paid
only $702k to Mrs. Audrey Hall thus avoiding the fraudulent claim of $2.3m
against the Estate of Nancy Hall, leaving sufficient funds for the Claims of
Spunter Pty Ltd as the legitimate creditor that has been quantified by DCJ
Sweeney in the sum of $141k found at paragraph 244 of Her Honour Judgment in
DCIV 2509 of 2002 dated 8.11.2011 and the claim of Ni Kok pursuant to s.244
of the LPA 2003 in the sum of about $150k as contained in CIV2157 of 2011
(the Jurisdictional Errors of Simmonds J and Sweeney J) (See Annexure: MFL43-MFL51).
|
54 to 57
58 to 64
65
66 to 74
|
9
|
6.3.2012
|
1) President Chaney of SAT
delivered the Judgment in VR158 of 2011 on 24.2.2012 by dismissing the
following Complaints without any justifications for doing so:
A) COMPLAINT NO.6: DAVID TAYLOR MISLED MR. LAW AS TO THE
DATE OF FILING THE WRIT OF SUMMONS.
B) COMPLAINT NO.7: DAVID TAYLOR SWORE AN AFFIDAVIT
CONTAINING A FALSE STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE FILING OF THE WRIT OF
SUMMONS.
2) It is clear that His
Honour is biased and had prejudged the issue and had expressed his intention
to dismiss complaint No.5 on 13.3.2012:
DAVID TAYLOR ADVISED MR.
LAW TO COMPLAIN TO LPCC AGAINST MR. CHIN WITHOUT ANY ADEQUATE OR PROPER BASIS
FOR DOING SO.
3) Complaint No.5 relates
to the issue that David Taylor advised Maurice Law to start a Frivolous and
Vexatious Claim against Ni Kok Chin in Midland Minor Claim CA No. 2475 of
2006 through the help of Registrar Powell (See Annexure: Table Showing the
Jurisdictional Errors of President Chaney of SAT in his Honour Judgment in
VR158 of 2011 or LAW and LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE [2012] WASAT
36. The Jurisdictional Errors is
clearly explained vis-Ã -vis the 21 numbered paragraphs of the said Judgment
and is in 9 pages (The Jurisdictional Error of President Chaney).
|
SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT: PAGES
74A1 to 74A9 for President’s Chaney Judgment dated 24.2.2012.
PAGES 74B1 to 74B9 –
JURISDICTIONAL ERRORS OF JUSTICE CHANEY
|
CHRONOLOGY TABLE 2-
EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO COMPLAINT NO.5
10
|
17.2.2005
|
Mr. Maurice Law was in depressive
state of mind resulting from his daughter’s death, which caused him to be led
blindly by David Taylor to take up Midland Magistrates Court Minor Claim in
CA2475 of 2006 against Mr. Ni Kok Chin for no proper reasons. He is reliant upon his solicitor who
maliciously led him to make a false claim against Mr. Chin as uncovered by
the following events:
|
|
11
|
14.3.2006
17.3.2006
|
Nancy Hall was not happy
that Mr. Chin has to stop representing her because of the fraud of David
Taylor and Registrar Powell.
|
75 to 76
|
12
|
28.3.2006
|
1) Mr. Chin responded to
Registrar Powell that he was acting for Nancy Hall only for CIV 1142 of 2005
No.1 and not for CIV 1131 of 2006 but there was a memorandum of Appearance
filed 13.3.2006 conditional on Barrister Alan Camp representing Nancy Hall. (See
Annexure MFL-55).
2) Mr. Chin filed NOTICE OF
CEASING TO ACT FOR NANCY HALL resulting from Mr. David Taylor’s fabrication
of the court records in CIV1131 of 2006 with the help of Registrar Powell,
who knew that Mr. Chin was not acting for Ms. Hall and yet ordered a costs
order against him on 12.6.2006 in the absence of Mr. Chin but in the presence
of Mr. David Taylor. This resulted in Mr. Chin withdrawing from the case in
CIV 1142 of 2005 No.2 and Nancy Hall working on the case as a litigant in
person (See Annexure MFL-56).
|
77
78
|
13.
|
2.5.2006
|
Mr. Chin wrote to Daniel
Wells who is in the know about CIV1131 of 2006 never having been filed on
time by David Taylor and also to Associate of Registrar Powell to tell the
latter eupheministically that he could not act for Nancy Hall that was caused
by the fraud of David Taylor. (See Annexure: MFL-57)
|
79
|
14.
|
3.5.2006
|
Registrar Powell responded to
Mr. Chin’s letter dated 2.5.2006. The
malice of Registrar Powell is clear because the learned Registrar insist on
backing up David Taylor who is falsifying the court records in CIV1131 of
2006 that it was commenced on 10.2.2006.
Clearly, he is referring to CIV 1142 of 2005 No.1 but Mr. Chin is
referring to CIV 1131 of 2006. Mr.
Chin has completed his job for the former case and if the court were to do
something wrongful by not acknowledging the fraud of David Taylor, then Mr.
Chin wants to get away from it. Mr.
Chin is not going to run his head against the wall and Registrar Powell is
the wall that he had to bash his head against. Mr. Chin did not have to get the recognition
of the court to get out of CIV1142 of 2005 No.1 because Nancy Hall agreed to
file a Notice to Act in Person and she did. It is
|
80 - 81
|
15.
|
4.5.2006
|
Mr. Chin’s explanation in
his letter to Registrar Powell cannot be clearer and yet Registrar Powell
ordered the false costs order against Mr. Chin at the instigation of David
Taylor on 12.6.2006. (See Annexure MFL 60)
|
82
|
16.
|
5.5.2006
|
Ms. Lynch of the Supreme
Court Registry acknowledges the receipt of the NOTICE OF CEASING TO ACT dated
2.5.2006. This is very clear to
Registrar Powell. Unless there is
malice, Registrar Powell cannot go on to order the unlawful costs order
against Mr. Chin that was the result of the malice of David Taylor ( See
MFL-61).
|
83
|
17.
|
16.5.2006
|
After Registrar Powell had
maliciously ordered the lawful costs order against Mr. Chin on 12.6.2006 at
the instigation of David Taylor, the learned Registrar illogically and
without a finding of fact stated that Mr. Chin is still on record acting for
Nancy Hall. If CIV 1142 of 2005 No.1
is still subsisting at that time, that may be the case. But that Case has
been completed. This is despite the
fact that Nancy Hall has filed her NOTICE TO ACT IN PERSON (See Annexure:
MFL-62).
|
84
|
18.
|
18.5.2006
|
Mr. Chin responded to
Registrar Powell’s letter dated 16.5.2006 copied to David Taylor. This makes Mr. Chin’s position much clearer
(See Annexure: MFL-63).
|
85
|
19.
|
18.7.2006
|
If David Taylor is fair
dinkum, he would not have written this letter to demand Mr. Chin to continue
to represent Nancy Hall in CIV 1131 of 2006 which case had been abdicated by
Mr. Chin protesting the fraudulent conduct of Registrar Powell acting in
conspiracy with David Taylor ((See Annexure: MFL-64).
|
86
|
20
|
21.6.2006
|
Despite having been told
that it was Mr. David Taylor’s fault in causing Mr. Chin not to be able to
continue to represent his client Nancy Hall in CIV1142 of 2005 No.2 and in
CIV 1131 of 2006, the former tried to serve the Statement of Claim of CIV1131
of 2006 on Mr. Chin without success. (See Annexure: MFL-65)
|
87
|
21
|
31.7.2006
|
Mr. Chin sent an email to
David Taylor copied to the Associate of Registrar Powell to explain the whole
situation. If there is honesty amongst
them, then they would have understood the whole situation that was clearly
explained in that email letter (See Annexure: MFL-66 to MFL-68).
|
88-90
|
22
|
1.8.2006
|
David Taylor did understand
the contents of the email letter of Mr. Chin as explained in item 11 above
and he did not deny its contents which means that he had fully admitted to
them. This is signified by his last statement that he has nothing further to
add. (See Annexure: MFL-69)
|
91
|
23
|
8.8.2006
14.8.2006
|
Mr. Chin gave a detailed
explanation of the malice of Mr. David Taylor in coercing Mr. Maurice
Frederick Law to do the wrong thing by Mr. Chin because the former paid for
the court fees of $399.00 into the Supreme Court Registry for which the
|
92- 97
|
24
|
17.8.2006
|
Mr. David wrote to the LPCC
to complain against Mr. Chin. This
letter contains the falsehood in material particulars that are being negated
by Mr. Chin’s letters dated 31.7.2006 referred to above and 1.9.2006 as
indicated below (See Annexure: MFL-76-MFL-79).
|
98-101
|
25.
|
28.8.2006
29.8.2006
|
The LPCC though its Ms.
Coombs wrote to Barrister Alan Camp enclosing Mr. Chin’s letter dated
31.7.2006. The contents of Mr. Chin’s
letter of that date is being acknowledged as correct by Barrister Alan Camp
in his response letter to the LPCC(See Annexure: MFL-80- MFL-81)
|
102-103
|
26.
|
1.9.2006
|
Mr. Chin wrote to the LPCC
responding to its letter dated 28.8.2006 and gave a comprehensive account of
all things that had happened with regard to the improper complaint of David
Taylor and the malicious manner in which he had treated Mr. Chin. (See
Annexure: MFL-82 to MFL-82 to MFL-88)
|
104-111
|
27.
|
21.9.2006, 23.9.2006,
26.9.2006.
27.9.2006.
|
Mr. Chin wrote four letters
to the Chief Magistrate Mr. Steven Heath as well as to the Registrar of the
|
112-122
|
28.
|
29.3.2007
|
Barrister Alan Camp had to
withdraw because Registrar Powell would not agree to acknowledge the fact
that CIV1131 of 2006 was not filed in compliance with Jenkin’s J Order in CIV
1142 of 2005 No.1.
|
123-124
|
29.
|
17.6.2007
|
The Chief Justice Wayne
Martin QC stated to the Australian that WA judicial complaint system lacks
transparency and that His Honour does not have any processes or procedures
available to him that are open and transparent (See Annexure: MFL-101 to
MFL-103).
|
125-127
|
30
|
3.11.2011
|
1) Paragraph 1 of the
submission of David Taylor states that the SAT President had questioned
Maurice Law as to whether Mr. Chin had assisted with the application in VR158
of 2011 and this was confirmed by Mr. Law.
1.1. Was Complaint Nos. 6 and
7 dismissed by President Chaney because Mr. Chin had helped Mr. Law in that
Application?
2) Sub-paragraph 2.3: Why
were complaints 6 and 7 unreasonable and how does His Honour define Unreasonableness?
2.1. This issue of Unreasonableness
must be defined and re-decided as there is no basis for such a decision.
2.3. Does the concept of unreasonableness
advanced by David Taylor and accepted by President Chaney fit in with the law
as expressed by Lord Green M.R:
It is true the discretion must be exercised
reasonably. Now what does that mean? Lawyers familiar with the phraseology
commonly used in relation to exercise of statutory discretions often use the
word "unreasonable" in a rather comprehensive sense. It has
frequently been used and is frequently used as a general description of the
things that must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with a
discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call
his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude
from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to
consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is
said, to be acting "unreasonably." Similarly, there may be
something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay
within the powers of the authority. Warrington LJ in Short v Poole Corporation[1926]
2.4.
Is
President Chaney acting in bad faith? That is a question we must consider.
3. Sub-paragraph 2.4: The issue of Owen JA
decision in WASCA 216 is a mood point that has already been dealt with
extensively with Commissioner’s Sleight Judgment in CIV 1877 of 2010. It has been debated at the blogspot of Mr.
Chin. 3.1. In CIV1142 of 2005 No.2 or SPUNTER
PTY LTD -v- HALL [No 2] [2007] WASC 239, (sic
WASCA 239) is the case where Mr. David Taylor is in conflict of interests: He
is reasonably found to have misled Simmonds J as to the filing date of CIV
1131 of 2006 and to the Affidavit sworn and dated 19.3.2007. He is reasonably found to be misleading
President Chaney again.
3.4. As a result, President delivered an unsound prejudgment
in VR158 of 2011 on 24.2.2012 which is both illogical and unfounded on the
facts of the case. (See Annexure:
MFL-104-107)
|
128-130
|
1.
I, MAURICE FREDERICK LAW as the authorized
non-lawyer legal
2.
representative
of Spunter Pty Ltd (Retired Builder) of No. 87, Herne Hill, MIDLAND WA PO Box 399 , MIDLAND WA
2.1. The
facts herein as contained in the Tables of CHRONOLOGY as indicated above in the
thirty numbered items are true and correct,
to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief. Where I identify the source of facts stated as other
than from my own personal knowledge,
I believe such facts to be true and correct.
2.2. I am filing this Affidavit in support of my
Application by way ORIGINATING MOTION dated 7th day of March, 2012
in Form 64 pursuant to RSC O 54 r 5, for the purposes of STOPPING his Honour
President Chaney of SAT from hearing VR158 of 2012 on 13.3.2012 and I wish the
Supreme Court to inform him of this so that he could not continue to FAIL TO DO
JUSTICE to me.
2.3. These proceedings have connection with my
Joint Application with Mr. Ni Kok Chin in CIV1275 of 2012 and in CIV 1323 of
2012. The latter is the Application by
Mr. Ni Kok Chin alone is with regard to his setting aside the Order of Murray J
that Mr. Chin is a Vexatious Litigant.
These matters ought to be consolidated pursuant to RSC O.83 for the
purpose of quieting all claims as they related to one subject
matter, transaction or event, or to substantially similar subject matters,
transactions or events, which is confined to the issue of the SINGLE page
DOCUMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY DAVID TAYLOR TO SAT ON 29.11.2011 AND IT WAS
VIEWED BY ME ON 30.11.2011 AS SHOWN TO ME BY MS. JACQUI OF SAT BUT WAS REFUSED
TO BE GIVEN TO ME BY JACQUI OR TONI SHERWOOD UPON MY REQUEST AS PROMISED BY
PRESIDENT CHANEY. That is the bank
statement with five entries which shows that the Court Fees of $654.20 was paid
by David Taylor to Supreme Court Registry on or about 19.5.2009 (which is the
time when Registrar Powell was being requested by Mr. Chin and myself to
produce the bank statement). It is very
strange that that payment was withdrawn on the same day. Upon reflection, it would be reasonable to
conjecture that the entry in the bank statement was made for an ulterior
purpose i.e. to facilitate the production of the false receipt purportedly
issued by the Supreme Court Registry on 19.5.2009 bearing Invoice Number 202483
found at ( Annexure: MFL26A). Registrar
Powell in his letter dated 11.6.2006 states clearly that there was a credit
card payment for which the learned Registrar has not been able to render an
account for. (See Annexure MFL-26B). Independent of
Registrar Powell’s story that the payment of court fees was paid on 16.2.2006,
Mr. David Taylor himself is contradicting the payment was made on 16.2.2006 but
is instead stating that that the payment was made on 10.2.2006. Where is the cheque that he drew to pay the
$654.00? Why it was still paid $654.20
by Visa Card but there is no proof of such payment at all? Who can be telling the truth? Who is telling the lies?
- I
would like to refer to His Honour Justice Spigelman Lecture on the Integrity or the Honesty of the Judicial
system as contained in His Honour’s Lecture entitled
4.1.
Jurisdiction
and Integrity - The Second Lecture in the 2004 National Lecture Series available which is available at: http://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/supreme_court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_speech_spigelman050804;
and
4.2.
The Centrality Of Jurisdictional Error Keynote Address by The Honourable
J J Spigelman Ac Chief Justice Of New
South Wales Ags Administrative Law Symposium: Commonwealth And New South Wales
Sydney, 25 March 2010 found at: http://www.hrnicholls.com.au/articles/Other/spigelman250310[1].pdf
5.
The above is also in line with the most recent development in Western
Australia when our Honourable Chief Justice Wayne Martin Q.C. announced on
22.2.2012 that the hearing of corruptions in our legal system in WA should be
made public irrespective of the sacrifice it is causing to the reputation of
those people in high places who are alleged to be corrupt or who have refused
to carry out their duties in accordance with the law and the applicable facts
of the case that are before them.
SWORN by the First Deponent at Perth
In the State of Western
Australia
This day of FEBRUARY,
2012 ]……………………………………………..
(Signature of MAURICE FREDERICK
Before Me,
…………………………………..
Justice of Peace/ Commissioner of the Supreme
Court for Taking Affidavit
SWORN by the Second Deponent ]
at Perth In the State
of Western
day of March,
2012 ]……………………………………………..
Before me: (Signature of
Maurice Frederick Law as the Second Deponent)
…………………………………..
Justice of Peace/
Commissioner of the Supreme
Court for Taking
Affidavit
No comments:
Post a Comment